awarzynski added inline comments.
Herald added a subscriber: jplehr.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Flang.cpp:128
+ if (IsHostOffloadingAction) {
+ for (size_t i = 1; i < Inputs.size(); ++i) {
+ if (Inputs[i].getType() != types::TY_Nothing)
----------------
What's the magic "1"? And given that the input count matters here - is there a
test with multiple inputs?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/flang/flang-omp.f90:6
+! Test regular -fopenmp with no offload
+! RUN: %clang --driver-mode=flang -### -fopenmp %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
--check-prefixes=CHECK-OPENMP %s
+! CHECK-OPENMP: "{{[^"]*}}flang-new" "-fc1" {{.*}} "-fopenmp" {{.*}}.f90"
----------------
Can you remind me why isn't it possible to test this with `flang-new`?
================
Comment at: flang/test/Driver/omp-frontend-forwarding.f90:13
+! CHECK: "{{[^"]*}}flang-new" "-fc1" "-triple" "aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu"
{{.*}} "-fopenmp" {{.*}}.f90"
+! CHECK-NOT: "{{[^"]*}}flang-new" "-fc1" "-triple" "aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu"
{{.*}} "-fopenmp" {{.*}} "-fopenmp-is-device" {{.*}}.f90"
+! CHECK: "{{[^"]*}}flang-new" "-fc1" "-triple" "amdgcn-amd-amdhsa" {{.*}}
"-fopenmp" {{.*}} "-fopenmp-is-device" {{.*}}.f90"
----------------
agozillon wrote:
> awarzynski wrote:
> > I feel that you can safely remove this line and replace the following with
> > `CHECK-NEXT`, no? Just wondering whether there's a way to reduce the noise
> > in these tests (without sacrificing the rigor).
> I can indeed, thank you very much @awarzynski! I have a knack for
> overcomplicating these it seems
> I have a knack for overcomplicating these it seems
You should see one of my patches ;-)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145815/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145815
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
